Back
High Court Of Calcutta
D. K. SETH, RAJENDRA NATH SINHA
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
GOLAM ALI - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL 262 Of 1997
Decided On : 02/11/2004
LAND ACQUISITION - VALUATION - DOCUMENT RELIED ON - EVIDENCE - COURT'S DUTY - SECTION 51A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - APPLICABILITY - COMPENSATION - RECURRING COMPENSATION - SECTION 7 (3) (4) AND SECTION 8 OF THE WEST BENGAL LAND REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION ACT, 1948 - APPLICABILITY - SECTION 23 (1A) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - APPLICABILITY TO ACQUISITION UNDER THE WEST BENGAL LAND REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION ACT, 1948 - EFFECTIVE DATE - WEST BENGAL LAND REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1996 - SECTION 7 SUB-SECTION (1) - APPLICABILITY - ORDER 41 RULE 33 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - APPLICABILITY - SCOPE - MOLLA AMANULLA (2003)1 CLT 346 (HC) - RATIO - APPLICABILITY - DOCUMENT ADMITTED BY PARTIES - RELIANCE BY PARTIES - COURT'S DUTY - COLLUSION OR FRAUD - NECESSITY FOR ALLEGATION OR APPEARANCE TO COURT - LIMITATION - COURT'S SUO MOTU POWER - INTEREST ON COMPENSATION - CALCULATION - PERIOD OF DEPOSIT IN COURT - RELEVANT DATE.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Special L. A. Judge, 1st Court, 24 Parganas (South) on 11th of April, 1994, contending that the valuation was disproportionately enhanced relying on an inadmissible document (Ext. 1), which was not proved. They also contended that there was no provision for grant of recurring compensation and that no basic norm was indicated for assessing the valuation of the Danga and Doba land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the document (Ext. 1) was accepted and tendered by the appellant and that the same was treated as the yardstick for determining the compensation. The court also held that the compensation payable under section 23 (1a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made applicable to compensation payable under the West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 by reason of the amendment incorporated in section 7 sub-section (1) of the 1948 Act through the West Bengal land Requisition and Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1996, being Act 25 of 1996, but was effective only from 1st of April 1994. The court further held that the document admitted by the parties and relied upon by both of them did not require the court to come to its own conclusion unless there was a question of limitation or an allegation or appearance of collusion or fraud.
Issues: 1. Whether the valuation was disproportionately enhanced relying on an inadmissible document? 2. Whether there was any provision for grant of recurring compensation? 3. Whether there was any basic norm indicated for assessing the valuation of the Danga and Doba land?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 51a of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 permits reception of evidence without proof or examination or cross-examination of the vendor or the vendee of the document, but the court is bound to consider the evidentiary value of the said document and weigh the same to come to its own conclusion. 2. Recurring compensation is not payable under section 7 (3) (4) and section 8 of the West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948. 3. The compensation payable under section 23 (1a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made applicable to compensation payable under the West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 by reason of the amendment incorporated in section 7 sub-section (1) of the 1948 Act through the West Bengal land Requisition and Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1996, being Act 25 of 1996, but was effective only from 1st of April 1994. 4. When a document is admitted by the parties and relied upon by both of them, the court is not required to come to its own conclusion unless there is a question of limitation or an allegation or appearance of collusion or fraud.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The court directed the respondent/appellant to deposit the interest part of the amount with the learned Registrar General within three months from the date of the order and also furnish a Statement of Calculation. The claimants were entitled to withdraw the amount already deposited together with interest already accrued thereon as well as the amount of interest for the period 1st April 1997 till 29th April 1998 after deposited in terms of this order, after deduction of the requisite charges.
( 1 ) ALL these four appeals are taken up simultaneously since these involve similar question of fact and law.
( 2 ) ASSAILING the judgment and decree passed in L. R. A. Case Nos. 215 to 218 of 1993 (V) passed by the learned Additional Special L. A. Judge, 1st Court, 24 Parganas (South) on 11th of April, 1994, Mr. Basu argued that the valuation was disproportionately enhanced relying on an inadmissible document. The document (Ext. 1) on which reliance was placed was not proved. According to him, section 51a of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) though permits reception of evidence without examination of the vendor and the vendee of the document yet it does not permit the Court to treat such evidence as sacrosanct. The Court has to weigh the evidence in order to arrive at a conclusion, which the Court did not do. According to him, the Court did not apply its mind and had simply followed the earlier judgment, which did neither operate as res judicata nor as a precedent. Mr. Basu further contended that there was no provision for grant of recurring compensation and referred to section 7 (3) (4) and section 8 of the West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 (1948 Act) to contend that the recurring compensation was not payable. Mr. Basu had relied on various decisions to support his contention, as advanced by him. He also contended that no basic norm was indicated as to how the valuation of the Danga and Doba land were assessed. Therefore, the judgment is liable to be set aside.
( 3 ) MR. Bera for the respondents contended that the Ext. 1 was accepted by the appellant and that the same was also tendered by the appellant, being Ext. A, in the proceedings and submitted before the Court that the same should be treated as the yardstick for determining the compensation. Therefore, all these submissions which Mr. Basu had made were ineffective and without any basis. On the other hand, he contended that though the claimants did not prefer any cross appeal or cross objection yet under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), they could claim the benefit which was otherwise payable in law to them and which had since been denied in infraction of the provisions of law, viz. the component payable under section 23 (1a) of the 1894 Act was not included in the compensation. He relied on the decision in Tulsi Charan Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, (2003)2 CLT 556 (HC) and pointed out that such amount payable under section 23 (1a) of the 1894 Act was also payable in respect of acquisition under the 1948 Act. However, in his usual fairness he conceded that it was payable only with effect from 1st April 1994 and not prior thereto, as was held in Tulsi Charan Mukherjee (supra ). In this case, the award was passed before the date when the amendment incorporated became effective and as such, this principle might not apply in this case. We appreciate the fairness of Mr. Bera in pointing out the case against himself. He again relied upon the decision in State of West Bengal v. Molla Amanulla, (2003)1 CLT 346 (HC), where it was held that unless cross appeal or cross objection was filed, the claimant was not entitled to raise any claim and contended that this ratio seemed to be in conflict with the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 33 Code of Civil Procedure and the ratio decided in the decisions of the Supreme Court.
( 4 ) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, it appears that the compensation, payable under section 23 (1a) of the 1894 Act was made applicable in respect of compensation payable under the 1948 Act by reason of the amendment incorporated in section 7 sub-section (1) of the 1948 Act through the West Bengal land Requisition and Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1996, being Act 25 of 1996. But this amendment was made effective from 1st of April 1994. This question had cropped up for consideration in the decision in Tulsi Charan Mukherjee (supra), where we had occas
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
